MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Disable Vista instead

Ditto, Ragu.

MS Vista strategy:
1) Make changes for the sake of making changes with no thought of usability and call them "all new features."
2) Kludge the OS with boggy eye candy so only a gaming machine will be able to run it.
3) Force PC manufacturers to abandon XP
4) Force consumers to upgrade when they buy a PC.
5) Destroy the user experience (What there was) and call it new security features. (i.e. UAC)
6) Cripple different features and don't allow any version to have all the features. Then put a high price tag on the real useful features (i.e. networking).
7)
.
.
.

ha!
MW was "third"
now it's persons

See there! Hum! They going to "alter vista search"... It took them 5 years to make a soso-lala OS work approximatly. Now i wonder what a mess it will do if they go back in there and start "changing things"... I'm affraid windoze users have yet a weird bunch of weird days to go through!

Wait... I don't understand how Vista's desktop search is substantially different from Spotlight. I get that MS is under all sorts of scrutiny from the Feds around antitrust issues, but (particularly with rising market share) won't Apple be similarly open to this type of decision as it relates to Spotlight?

Yeah, and Google should allow me to disable Gmail and use Hotmail instead from the Google homepage if I want that.

And Apple should allow me to watch WMV on my iPod.

Please, this is ridiculous!

Give those guys at Microsoft a fair chance to leverage their monopoly like everybody else does.

Vista's search IS similar to Spotlight (from a legal standpoint). Apple would only be vulnerable, however, if it get's caught with monpolistic practices that hurt consumers. That history is why M$ is being prevented from doing things that are otherwise perfectly legal. Still, I frankly don't think the feds (or states) can do anything useful in this area--we would all be better off if they just stayed out.

This just in. Microsoft to pay Apple 10 billion dollars so it can license OS 9 as its own.

"but (particularly with rising market share) won't Apple be similarly open to this type of decision as it relates to Spotlight?"

No, because even if Apple got 51% market share there really is an alternative in the market, albeit a crappy one plus Apple isn't locking out competitors. Besides, Spotlight really isn't an internet search.

I'd love nothing more for Apple to get 51% market share.

I feel sorry for Microsoft.

NOT

Sleazy back-handed used car salesmen. Don't trust and vigorously verify.

I dislike Windows operating systems just as much as the next guy, but isn't this being a bit unfair? Why should a product like Vista not be allowed to have its own "closed" system of anything (like desktop search)? Isn't it like saying the iPod should be forced to play wmp files, and so on?

Consumer dollars should dictate which features should be in the OS, not the government. If Google and MS made their own deal, fine; but the gov't should not be doing this I think. If people don't like being limited to Vista-only search, then they should buy a different OS or use a 3rd party solution.

Like CaveDoggy said, it's just like Spotlight too. Isn't it?

MDN: Standard; as in, we should all be held to the same standard

"I get that MS is under all sorts of scrutiny from the Feds around antitrust issues, but (particularly with rising market share) won't Apple be similarly open to this type of decision as it relates to Spotlight?"

Uh, no, as Apple has not been found guilty in the U.S. of illegal antitrust issues.

Apparently if you have M$ desktop search and Google search running at the same time, then they both perform slowly.

The result is the user is likely to switch off Google search rather than the M$ one. Not too sure if you can switch of Ms one yet.

I don't think Spotlight slows down the system if you're also using Google search.

It's just the same as when you open an MS App and a non-MS app at the same time. The MS app will generally open fast because it probably is able to get priority for CPU time.

A subtle way to make your wares look fast and competitors look slow.

The important thing about anti-trust cases is that it isn't so much what you do, it's what you do with a dominant market share, whatever the product.

If Apple had done what M$ was nailed for a few years ago over its browser war with Netscape, there wouldn't have been any reaction from the Justice Department.

And today in the news, MICROSOFT GETS ANOTHER SLAP ON THE WRIST - Join us tomorrow for more news.

"Isn't it like saying the iPod should be forced to play wmp files, and so on?"

saying that Apple has to ADD a feature (if you can call wmp a feature) is the same as MS allowing people to turn off a feature is hardly the same.

if you bought a car an you couldn't turn the radio off or change stations from the station the manufacturer owns, that is bad, and similar to what MS is doing.

if you bought a car with front wheel drive and then asked that they upgrade to 4 wheel since some other cars have it, that is similar to asking apple to add wmp files.

these are not the same argument.

MW: i "heard" MS was a monopoly, so maybe different rules apply.

"Alter Vista search"?

AK1808:
"Yeah, and Google should allow me to disable Gmail and use Hotmail instead from the Google homepage if I want that. And Apple should allow me to watch WMV on my iPod."

Hey, Google doesn't force you to go to their homepage and you can purchase any mp3 player you want. People are relegated to Windows because that's still the business-wide standard. They've have this monopoly since the late 80's and they continue to forcefeed people manure and steer people to their sh*tty search to ask for higher ad dollars. I own a business that advertises online and refuse to deal with MSN or any other MS company. That's why so many consumers are switching to Mac OS. Hopefully corporate America will follow suit.

Hmmmm,

"I dislike Windows operating systems just as much as the next guy, but isn't this being a bit unfair? Why should a product like Vista not be allowed to have its own "closed" system of anything (like desktop search)? Isn't it like saying the iPod should be forced to play wmp files, and so on?" Absolutly not. But Microsoft would like you to blindly think so.

PLEASE, Its a case of a monopoly using its position to FORCE you to do certain things. In the case of Microsoft, since its been caught and convcted of doing this before, now they try to do it in secret. They make it seem like other peoples stuff is crap by secretly causing problems when you use it. They then blame the 3rd party software for the issue, chite you for not using good old Microsofts crap and press on. YOU have NO CHOICE since you bought a PC and only one thing runs on it. :-(

And please, no Linux comments. If people cannot figure out how to shut off Microsofts automatic search and cluge mechanism, just how do you think they will ever try to switch to Linux.?? LOL

JMHO
en

MDN word tell. As in Tell me about it!!

"Hey, Google doesn't force you to go to their homepage and you can purchase any mp3 player you want. People are relegated to Windows because that's still the business-wide standard."

People are free to choose their OS, too.
No need for government intervention.

What about eBay? Try selling somewhere else! Or Skype? We have lock-ins and networks all through the IT industry. The government is really not the right place to fix this, customers can fix it with their $$.

Get a clue.

Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.

They are now trying to abuse their monopoly again.

Their origional punishment kicks in when they do this. It's just like commiting a parole violation. They just got sent back to jail. Justice prevails, such as it is.

Microsoft is being forced to play fair. The justice system, not the government, is enforcing a judge's decision.

As I said, get a clue.

If the courts give Microsoft an inch, you will soon see what Microsoft can do to screw the entire world.

It is a business with a well earned reputation for monopolistic practise that puts everyone else out of business. And it deserves no sympathy, no credit, and certainly no second chances.

The biggest problem I see from most of the posters here is that they don't seem to understand what a monopolist is. While it is not illegal to be a monopolist, using your position as a monopolist to gain every advantage is illegal because it limits the consumers choice thereby causing harm to the consumer. This is the layman's term under the Sherman Anti-trust Act. This is what MS was found guilty of.

To address the Apple issue: Apple was and is not a monopolist. It was never brought to the attention of the DOJ as a monopolist. The company was not brought to trial to stand as a monopolist. Therefore, Apple could not be guilting of being a monopolist.

To address the Google issue: for the same reasons as Apple not being a monopolist. Moreover, Google's contention rests on the fact that MS is going back to their old tricks of stifling the competion. Recall if you will, how Netscaped got killed by MS. MS bundled IE and made backhanded deals with OEMs to make IE the default browser. To make a long argument sure, this eventually killed Netscape because it had nowhere to turn to.

Disclaimer: I do not claim to be a legal scholar of any sort. All I do is do a lot of reading from both sides of the story. From there, I make my own decision--whether it is correct to the reader or not.

"People are free to choose their OS, too.
No need for government intervention."

actually, for a long time, you couldn't buy a non Mac without buying windows. even if you said you didn't want it, you might not get it, but you still PAID for it.

there is a reason they are a convicted illegal monopoly.

Wait... I don't understand how Vista's desktop search is substantially different from Spotlight.

The main difference in this case is Spotlight doesn't search the web. Vista's desktop search does (or can) using MS Live or whatever it's called.

The other difference has to do with OS market share. With Windows being the dominant OS, this drives a significantly larger amount of traffic to MS's own search sites and gives them the opportunity to dramatically increase their ad-revenue via those sites; while simultaneously decreasing the potential revenue for other search sites, including Google.

Not to argue with your point, but Spotlight will search the web with a handy plug-in called Google Importer:
http://www.caffeinatedcocoa.com/

This is wrong. Microsoft should be allowed to make their product how ever they want. Software companies do not have the right to make products for the OS. They simply do not. If people CHOOSE to buy a product that is not compatible with another product then that is the consumers CHOICE. Microsoft should not have to make their products compatible with anyone else product. Period. I do not like Vista, I didn't chose to run it, I love Mac's, and I love Apple. So do not get me wrong. But just wait until companies start to impose this kind of stuff on Apple. They will argue that Apple bundles Safari with Mac OS X and iTunes, and that it is not allowing for competition. I say well too bad to the competition, go developer an operating system and get people to buy it and bundle your software with it. No matter what anyone says they are "features" they are selling points for the operating system, and they are what the developer choses, the bottom line is consumers DO NOT HAVE TO BUY IT if they don't want to, and lack of knowledge of the product they are buying is not an excuse to not include something as to allow for other "competition" the fact is, if you buy it you get what you get. Period.

"AlterVista?"

What are they, from LongIsland?

DogGone:

The reason they "perform slowly" when both are running is that you have two separate engines trying to index files independently. It slows down the computer as a whole. This is nothing specific to MS and Google Desktop Search. The same slowdown would occur when running Spotlight and GDS (or any two programs, for that matter) simultaneously.


DJ Rizzo:

You're incorrect. The difference has nothing to do with internet search. Google is arguing that desktop search should be defined as "middleware". Middleware are programs that aren't specific to the OS but are often included in the OS (like internet browsers, media players, email programs, etc...). Google is arguing that, since desktop search is middleware, MS must open their OS to any other middleware program, like Google Desktop Search, and allow the user to change the default middleware provider. There are lots of these types of suits that take place not because MS was convicted of monopolistic practices, but because of threats that they will be sued again. There are other examples of the same type of lawsuit. During the development of Vista, MS was forced to allow software from antivirus companies (like Symantec and McAfee) the ability change the Vista kernal!!! In fact, MS was forced by the EU to sell a version of Windows without Windows Media Player for the same reason. Can you imaging Apple being forced to sell OSX without iLife?


To all:

Just be careful when you wish for MS's demise and the ascention OSX as the dominant OS. I don't want Google screwing around with Spotlight or Symantec and McAfee altering my OSX kernal or the EU getting rid of iLife!!

"Microsoft should be allowed to make their product how ever they want."

Not according to the laws of the U.S. Where were you April 3rd, 2000?
Monopolies convicted of abusive, anti-competitive practices must adhere to the ruling of law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

Read the part about prohibited conduct:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f200400/200457.htm

Monopolistic practises harm not only the consumer and their (better) competitors, but they harm the entire economy. If you have say 4 companies running the whole country (as has happened in the past in some countries) there are no market economics principles at work for efficient resource allocation and the whole economy goes down the tubes, while the monopolist makes heaps of money.

Is that whole some of you people want, when you say monopolists should be able to do whatever they want?

PLUS, Apple and Google get on fine. Apple has done nothing to sabotage Google search on the Mac, it works just fine!

On Mac OS X having iLife, Spotlight, iTunes, Safari, etc in absolutely no means it undermines or reduces customer option of installing ANYTHING else and use that instead. Mac OS X does not start to react badly, bitching customers every time they run another browser whether they do want INSTEAD to revert to Safari as default (you may even delete Safari from your system if you wish to do so). That is, the environment is such that competitors CAN thrive on OS X and playing a LEVEL FIELD on the OS so that the user can CHOOSE without external influence but the quality of the products, Apple's own or competitors.

On Windows this DOES NOT HAPPEN. Competitors products performance, quality, interaction with the OS are undermined so that competitors are not playing on a level field with corresponding Microsoft products so that the user is actually presented with an inferior experience on competitors products that is only there BECAUSE OF MICROSOFT MONOPOLISTIC PRACTICES.

Capish?

The issue is not with having *ANYTHING-YOU-LIKE* bundled with the OS, or coming with it. The issue arises when the *ANYTHING-YOU-LIKE* that comes with the OS, bundled or pre-installed, undermine or interfere negatively with the quality or user experience of a corresponding competitor products, hence illegal monopolistic practice.

So all above saying "Ahhhh, it will then happen with Apple *your-favorite-sw-title-here as well" simply are clueless about what the real issue is about.

So yes, Google is right.

Not only was MS found to have a monopoly, it was (long ago) found to have engaged in illegal tactics to GET that monopoly. People forget that before Windows there was DOS. DOS did little enough that other companies made alternates that were compatible (notably Digital Research with DR-DOS)--and probably superior.

But MS licensing terms for computer manufacturers required them to pay a license fee for every box whether it included MS-DOS or not. That froze DR out of the OEM market, solidified MS' monopoly.

The rules ARE different for MS both because of their monopoly power but ALSO for how they got it. They have settled these cases with consent decrees where they agree not to do certain things in the future.

The equivalent, btw, might be if apple required all music on the iTunes store to be EXCLUSIVE to iTunes. (Note "required"... not to be confused with a promotional exclusive that doesn't preculde a different promotional exclusive on another service.)

Anyway it is not just MS' market position that makes the rules different--it's past behavior, and how they've settled those cases.